Anderson v. State
93 So. 3d 1201
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Andrew Anderson was adjudicated delinquent in 2005 for lewd and lascivious molestation of young cousins and diagnosed with pedophilia.
- In 2009 the State petitioned for involuntary commitment as a sexually violent predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act after probable cause was found.
- A 2009 status conference postponed trial to obtain a doctor’s evaluation, acknowledged as grounds for a continuance.
- Continuances continued into 2010; a September 2010 motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, followed by an amended petition filed January 2011 and a detainment stay pending appeal.
- Anderson was released from custody in January 2011 pending trial, then a Motion for Continuance was denied and a bench trial occurred January 31, 2011, resulting in commitment.
- The trial court’s commitment order was challenged on jurisdictional grounds, invoking the invited-error rule and Taylor v. State as controlling authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor controls custody at amended-petition filing | Anderson remained in custody when amended petition filed. | Taylor distinguishes custody timing and invited error; asserted jurisdiction exists. | Affirmed |
| Whether the State could file a new or amended petition after dismissal without prejudice | State should be allowed to continue proceedings after dismissal without prejudice. | Taylor prohibits refiling in the same proceeding; custody must exist. | Affirmed |
| Whether the thirty-day deadline is mandatory but not jurisdictional affects the outcome | Deadline is mandatory; delays trigger withdrawal/remedy. | Deadline non-jurisdictional but binding with consequences; remedy includes release. | Affirmed |
| Whether the invited-error doctrine bars relief | Anderson invited continuances; cannot complain. | Doctrine should foreclose relief; Taylor controls. | Affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Boatman v. State, 77 So.3d 1242 (Fla.2011) (mandatory time rules and remedy of release where delay occurs)
- Osborne v. State, 907 So.2d 505 (Fla.2005) (dismissal without prejudice; release pending further proceedings)
- Morel v. Wilkins, 84 So.3d 226 (Fla.2012) (thirty-day rule mandatory but not jurisdictional; invited error considerations)
- Larimore v. State, 2 So.3d 101 (Fla.2008) (lawful custody concept tied to initiation of proceedings)
- Taylor v. State, 65 So.3d 531 (Fla.1st DCA 2011) (dismissal without prejudice; amended petition; custody timing; controlling precedent)
- Goode v. State, 830 So.2d 817 (Fla.2002) (thirty-day deadline mandatory but not jurisdictional)